Jump to content
KenBAZ

Interesting No Catch

Recommended Posts

13U Triple Crown played under modified Fed rules. Bases empty, I'm in A. BR hits a little flair that F4 charges hard from deep to attempt to take in the air. F4 secures the ball in his glove while diving to the ground and apparently jamming his wrist. F4 is lying on the ground with the ball in his glove, (I think), also on the ground. I make no call. The BR passes 1B and turns immediately to run back to home.

F4 pulls his hand out of his glove leaving the glove on the ground with the ball in it. I verbalize, "No Catch!". F1 reaches into F4's glove lying on the ground and and throws to F3 who tags the BR as he attempts to return to 1B from down the line between Home and 1B. Not a word from either team, but of course the parents had no idea what had happened.

 

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why was this not a catch? Did it bounce? Otherwise I don't see how the ball could stay in the glove if he didn't have control at one point. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He voluntarily took his hand out of his glove it sounds like to me... that’s a catch in my book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rules do not constrain what 'voluntary release' must look like (though the paradigm is clear enough).

What part of pulling his hand from the glove struck you as involuntary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve got a catch also ... assuming the pocket was up.  If the pocket was down and the glove over the ball (potential trap), then I’m with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

I’ve got a catch also ... assuming the pocket was up.  If the pocket was down and the glove over the ball (potential trap), then I’m with you.

OP says the ball was left in the glove. I can't imagine that he'd somehow trap it, then in the process of flipping the glove over as he took his hand out scooped it up. I guess it's possible, but I doubt that's what happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2018 NFHS rule 2-9-1…The catch of a fly ball by a fielder is not completed until the continuing action of the catch is completed. A fielder who catches a ball and then runs into a wall or another player and drops the ball has not made a catch. A fielder, at full speed, who catches a ball and whose initial momentum carries him several more yards after which the ball drops from his glove has not made a catch. When the fielder, by his action of stopping, removing the ball from his glove, etc., signifies the initial action is completed and then drops the ball, will be judged to have made the catch…

2019 NFHS Case Book Play 2.9.1 Situation A:  B1 hits a ground ball to F5. The throw to F3 is wide causing him to stretch for the catch. The ball arrives in time, but as F3 attempts to regain his balance, he drops the ball. Is the runner out?  RULING:  Attempts to regain balance after receiving the ball are considered a part of the act of catching, and if the fielder does not come up with the ball in his possession, it is not considered a catch. In all such cases, judgment is a factor. If the ball is clearly in the fielder’s possession and if some other new movement not related to the catch is then made, and if the ball is fumbled during such new movement, the umpire will declare it a catch followed by a fumble.

2019 2.9.1 Situation C:  B1 hits a fly ball to F8. F8 gets the ball in his hands but it is dropped (a) when he falls to the ground and rolls over; or (b) when he collides with a fielder or a wall; or (c) when he starts to throw to the infield. RULING:  In (a) and (b), it is not a catch. In (c), it is a legal catch if an umpire rules that the ball was dropped as the fielder voluntarily removed the ball from the glove.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. KenBAZ, even though your game was played under modified FED rules, you might find helpful what the 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual says about this kind of play—

It is a catch if a fielder who is not on dead ball territory has complete control of an airborne batted or pitched ball in his hand or glove. A fielder shows complete control by…

Regaining control of his own body after extenuating efforts to catch the ball (especially in regard to a fall, dive, or a collision), and

Showing that his release of the ball is (or will be) voluntary and intentional. The glove must be worn properly on his hand or must be in his possession. A ball in a glove that is detached from a fielder and lying on the ground is no longer airborne.

 ***

Obviously, you are the one who saw the play and had to make a call. I would say that there is a good chance that you were right. I commend you for a gutsy call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. maven posted earlier, “The rules do not constrain what 'voluntary release' must look like (though the paradigm is clear enough).” I believe that might need to be edited for the NCAA—here’s their rule 2-16

2019-2020 NCAA rule 2-16 …In establishing the validity of the catch, the fielder shall demonstrate complete control of the ball and that the release of the ball is voluntary and intentional. Only two circumstances may be interpreted as creating a voluntary and intentional release.

 1) When the momentum of the catch is complete; i.e., the fielder has reversed his direction and is running the ball back toward the infield or;

 2) When the fielder is reaching for the ball to make a throw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

Mr. maven posted earlier, “The rules do not constrain what 'voluntary release' must look like (though the paradigm is clear enough).” I believe that might need to be edited for the NCAA—here’s their rule 2-16

2019-2020 NCAA rule 2-16 …In establishing the validity of the catch, the fielder shall demonstrate complete control of the ball and that the release of the ball is voluntary and intentional. Only two circumstances may be interpreted as creating a voluntary and intentional release.

 1) When the momentum of the catch is complete; i.e., the fielder has reversed his direction and is running the ball back toward the infield or;

 2) When the fielder is reaching for the ball to make a throw.

My guess is that NCAA meant "e.g.," and not "i.e.," above.  We can come up with plays that don't meet the specifics given, but on which all of us would have a catch.

 

IF that's true, then I think the generality ("momentum of the catch") was met in the OP, and I'd have a catch as well (based on what I'm seeing in my mind's eye)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. noumpere, I wouldn’t presume to tell you or anyone else what a rules committee had intended in its writing of a rule unless I could support it with some evidence. But in a delicious irony I am able to tell you that it is very unlikely that your guess about rule 2-16 is correct. You see, even though the rule I cited has been around since at least 2016 it turns out that the NCAA made major editorial changes to its rule 2-16 for their 2017-2018 edition of the baseball rule book. They stated on page 7 of that edition that these editorial changes were to clarify the rule--

2017 & 2018 Editorial Changes

2-16 Clarifies voluntary and intentional release during a catch ..... 25

Since they thought they had clarified the text they probably meant it exactly as they wrote it—wouldn’t you agree? And how do I know about this editorial change? Well, I followed rule 6.95—you know, the rule you created! So, thanks for the good advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

Since they thought they had clarified the text they probably meant it exactly as they wrote it—wouldn’t you agree?

No, I wouldn't agree without some specific guidance to that effect.  I see way too many written documents where "i.e.," and "e.g.," are mis-used.

 

And, if they mean it exactly as it's written, then the old example play where "F8 moves forward to glove the fly ball, continues running toward the dugout, trips over second base and the ball comes out of the glove" would NOT be a catch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, noumpere said:

No, I wouldn't agree without some specific guidance to that effect.  I see way too many written documents where "i.e.," and "e.g.," are mis-used.

 

And, if they mean it exactly as it's written, then the old example play where "F8 moves forward to glove the fly ball, continues running toward the dugout, trips over second base and the ball comes out of the glove" would NOT be a catch.

And I'll clarify this further--if they actually meant i.e., that would mean that the only time momentum was complete was if the fielder had both reversed direction and was running the ball back to the infield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found the following interpretation from Rich Marazzi at baseballrulesacademy.com. It is about a catch made by George Springer of the Astros in a game played against the Brewers at Miller Park on September 4, 2019, when Springer made a leaping catch to rob Ryan Braun and end the fifth inning. It is similar to our OP in that the fielder fell backward and landed on his back side and was hurt—he then discarded his glove with the ball inside it. Video does exist if someone can find it and post it here that would be great. Here is an excerpt from Marazzi’s analysis that might help us here…

If the ball fell out of his glove the moment he made contact with the ground, it would be ruled no catch. The same would be true if the ball in glove became detached as a result of hitting the ground. But I think he intentionally flicked the ball and glove from his hand after hitting the ground. Therefore, the ground did not cause the ball and glove to be detached.

If a batted ball is gloved airborne by a fielder, but the glove/ball combination is ripped off the fielder’s hand and drops to the ground with ball still in glove, it is no catch. If the fielder falls to the ground and is incapacitated with ball in glove still on his hand, the ball would still be in flight and the closest fielder should pull the ball out of his glove to legalize the catch. The ball would still be in flight because it never touched the ground, a wall, a foreign object, an umpire or an opposing player.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious is there anything to be brought into this in the fact the fielder that gloved the ball did not make the next move with the ball ?

Quote

2018 NFHS rule 2-9-1…The catch of a fly ball by a fielder is not completed until the continuing action of the catch is completed. A fielder who catches a ball and then runs into a wall or another player and drops the ball has not made a catch. A fielder, at full speed, who catches a ball and whose initial momentum carries him several more yards after which the ball drops from his glove has not made a catch.

 

I am wondering if OP thought the catch was not completed because F1 took it from F4's glove that was on the ground.  Not sure about Fed rules but I do know LL has bases awarded for gloves or hats thrown at a ball.  Not that this is the same thing. This is an injury.

Although I am thinking it is a catch because the player came to a stop after catching the ball and it is in control of them in their glove.  If there is noting else going on with runners then as far as the fielder is concerned the play is over and they being hurt removed their glove.  Of course to me also webbing up or down would matter too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tborze said:

Wouldn't it be PU's catch/no catch?

By the book, probably, but if there's something weird like this, I'd probably get it. Though I have this as a catch, so I'm not doing anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tborze said:

Wouldn't it be PU's catch/no catch?

Catch/no catch isn't 100% to one umpire, 0% to the other. Both umpires should have eyes on: primary responsibility for the call is specified in the manual. But shîte happens, and whoever is secondary might save the crew.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...